Thursday, December 31, 2009

I'm back. No guarantee I'm firing on all eight cylinders, but I'll do my best.

Probably, no one missed me. It's not like I'm the President of the United States, and I spent the last week playing in the sun while my country and the world wondered when I was going to get back on the job...

But hey, I might be being unnecessarily smarmy. I've barely looked at the news for 48 hours, not wanting to leave my blankie and all. Surely President Obama has come to his senses back to Washington.

Woohoo! Oh, joyous day! President Barack Obama finally showed some fiscal restraint! He had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Congress and say "NO!" to spending money! I must have misjudged him! There is Hope! Things can Change!

What's that? The bill was a redundant butt-covering stopgap measure that never took effect and was pretty much a moot point already?

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

You get hit by the enemy. The invisible, microscopic enemy that somehow manages to slam you to the ground like a semi truck at 90mph.

I hate to be sick. And I'm a lousy patient. I'm a grumpy, miserable, hard-to-be-around sick person. And I feel gawd-awful....

Light blogging - probably for a couple days. It takes too much effort to climb out from under my electric blanket to the keyboard, and my head is pounding so I can barely think, let alone try to fake intelligence or wit.

It's funny... I have no memory of drinking my weight in tequila - but that's how I feel.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Joe Casual gave a statement today on the attempted Christmas terror attack. With an unbuttoned shirt and no tie, one might think he'd dashed straight from the beach upon being notified and rushed directly to the press zone to give speak to his country.

One would be wrong.

Despite three days prep time, Obama couldn't manage bother to dress appropriately or polish up his remarks. The speech was so lousy, I'm not going to link it or quote it. Enduring the monotone, emotionally barren remarks was like listening to your assistant principal from high school drone on and on and on. Except the assistant principal was professional enough to button his shirt and put on a tie.

And will somebody please deliver his teleprompter to Hawaii? It was almost painful to watch him constantly scanning his notes between attempts to look somber.

You'd think the Christmas terror attempt might wake up some on the left who still labor under the delusion that the world likes us better for having elected Obama. It seemed a clear sign to most that not only do the terrorists still wish us harm, they're smart enough to engage in the psychological aspect of an attack on our biggest holiday.

But if, like me, you did think eyes would be opening... you'd be wrong.

In a HuffPo piece today, Malou Innocent warns that the Obama administration must not overreact:

"In times of terrorism, the first casualty is American values."

Uh, no. In times of terrorism, the first casualties are the innocents, killed or injured by those who wish to break our spirit and send us into panic.

"The Obama administration must counter its impulse to overreact to this recent terrorist incident."

Incident? This was an attempt to blow up an airplane full of people, and yet it's already been reduced to an "incident"... one we should be careful not to overreact to.

"Obama and his team obviously prefer a far more mature, strategic approach. It's about projecting a sense of calm and control. It's about choosing not to elevate some lunatic thug who set himself on fire."

-snip-

"It's about competent and effective leadership, and it's what the country was sorely lacking up until 11 months ago."

This mindset (which our President shares) is why we're screwed. You have a portion of the left who views terrorists (apparently) as unruly children who are best dealt with by not reacting strongly to their misbehavior. You have another portion who thinks the greatest tragedy of 9/11 was the Patriot Act - never mind nearly 3,000 dead Americans. Then you have those on the left who genuinely believe this is all our fault, and if we would just bring home every soldier and mind our own business then life would be peaceful and perfect. (Europe should thank their lucky stars this crew wasn't in power when it came time to fight in WWII.)

Is Obama's lack of reaction to the attempted bombing (not to mention the uprising in Iran) disappointing? Of course it is. Is it surprising? Not at all.

At this point, I'm only surprised that Obama's reaction wasn't to apologize for America's sins before bowing deeply to Abdul FaroukUmarAbdulmutallab.---------

"Rather, liberals feared that Americans might blame the Obama administration for failing to protect them from terrorists or -- perhaps even worse -- demand action against the violent extremists who want to kill us all.

Liberals believe most of their fellow citizens are benighted troglodytes, so there was also the frightening possibility of a xenophobic hate-crime backlash."

It's amazing (to me) that liberals can take such a negative view of their fellow Americans, yet be willing to extend every benefit of the doubt to those who would do us harm. McCain closes with:

"From the so-called "anti-anti-communism" of the liberal past, we have arrived at the anti-anti-terrorism of the liberal present. We are not permitted to question the good intentions of liberals, although perhaps it is still permissible to point out the destination of the road notoriously paved with such intentions."

Perhaps. But I doubt it. Anyone with the audacity to question Obama's "mature" handling of the situation will be branded a fear monger who's overreacting - probably out of racism and intolerance. Liberals, who seem to believe we require the government to control every aspect of existence, would rather we sit back and calm down while the grownups handle the "incident".

Sunday, December 27, 2009

I just saw a story on CBS News that discusses the President's Hawaiian vacation -- which has been rudely interrupted by a man-caused disaster an attempted terror attack.

As you might remember, President George W. Bush took a lot of heat from the media over his "vacations" at his Crawford ranch, as well as for his golf games. Reporters were quick to point out that he couldn't be properly conducting official business far from the White House.

Well the toadying bootlickers stalwart journalists at CBS are here to reassure us. President Obama may be on vacation, but he's on the job! Here's a taste:

"The president sprung into action."

That's right. Sprung. Like Superman from a phone booth. Here's more:

"One of his basketball partners today was his national security chief of staff, so you could say that even while relaxing, he's always close to his top aides."

Oh, gag me.

They want us to be content in the knowledge that aside from some golf, a few basketball games, the beach and island exploring... well, aside from all that vacation stuff, he's on top of the job!

Mr. President... Get your ass home and do your job. Seriously. We are possibly witnessing a revolution in a country long torn by war. We have had a too-near miss on another airplane. Your senators are tapping the keg while you're out of the house like teenagers whose parents have left them home alone.

And you're playing basketball while the suckups in the press defend you. Nice.

The British press is doing a better job of calling out Obama than his state run media at home. From The Telegraph's Nile Gardiner:

"And again there is deafening silence from the Commander-in-Chief as well as his Secretary of State. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recuperating from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American public and without a shred of bipartisan support."

Ouch. There's more:

"The United States has a major role to play in inspiring and advancing freedom in Iran, and the president should make it clear that the American people are on the side of those brave Iranians who are laying down their lives for liberty in the face of tyranny."

Maybe if we could get the SEIU over to Iran to "organize" those protesters, he'd finally see them as worthy of his attention.

GatewayPundit has some extensive coverage of the protests in Iran and the government crackdown. Protesters, including the nephew of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, have been shot it the streets. Some are chanting “This is a month of blood. Khamenei will be toppled!”, and “Down with the dictator!”

And from the White House..... Crickets.

What I wouldn't give to swap this sissy in the White House for George Bush right about now.

Obama, who is so naive about real evil that he believes America should be apologizing to everyone, is incapable of recognizing what is happening in Iran. He has no concept of genuine struggle against oppression because he has subscribed to the liberal notion that any inconvenience or insult is oppression. They've made mountains of so many molehills that they don't recognize when they're staring at the Andes.

George W. Bush had a lot of faults, yes... But he understood the deep human need for real freedom. And he understood that as we had to fight for our independence, so will others who long to throw off the dictators who hold them down.

He also understood that those people would need support, and that the rest of the free world had an obligation to rally together for all our best interest. The following excerpts are from a speech about Lebanon... but change it to "Iran" as you read:

"By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy. It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors. It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies. And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East."

And more:

"Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon: All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience. Lebanon's future belongs in your hands, and by your courage, Lebanon's future will be in your hands. The American people are on your side. Millions across the earth are on your side. The momentum of freedom is on your side, and freedom will prevail in Lebanon."

This is what the protesters in Iran need to hear. And they need to hear it from the leader of the largest free society on earth. They need to know they are not alone in their struggle to acquire what we take for granted - simple human freedom.

President Obama has a chance here to do right. This is an opportunity to make a positive mark not only on America, but the world. He can lead the planet in standing with Iranians against a dictator, and help move the Middle East closer to peace. He can live up to his own hype.

But he won't. At best, we can hope he'll keep quiet so as to not make things worse.

UPDATE: Huh. Who'da thunk? The White House has actually issued a statement condemning the murder of protesters by the thug regime.

"Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States."

Still, it would be better if Obama spoke out personally, rather than through a mouthpiece. This should be a bigger deal to him than the Olympics -- and he can't wait to get his mug on TV any other time.

C'mon, Mr. President. Fire up the teleprompter and say something eloquent. The world is waiting.

Bernard Henri-Levy, defender of pedophiles and sometime blogger at HuffPo, is at it again.

In his ongoing defense of Roman Polanski, he's written numerous posts on the blog over there and in his own published journal. He's been a strong Polanski supporter from day one, oblivious to the fact that even the great majority of commenters to the blog disagree with him. Maybe he doesn't go back to read his own posts....

Well, someone's reading them. Roman Polanski. Today's bit of apologist rubbish includes a letter from the pervert director himself. He asked Henri-Levy to share a message with his supporters. Here's a sample:

I would like every one of them to know how heartening it is, when one is lockedup in a cell, to hear this murmur of human voices and of solidarity in themorning mail.

Evil little leprechaun. I wish he was hearing the murmur of human voices in his cell... whispering in his ear from behind -- that would be justice.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Keira Knightley has been taking heat from the tabloids for years over her weight. Accusations of eating disorders (or being Natalie Portman's late-afternoon shadow) have hounded her, and even made her worry for her career.

"I am not the best cook in the world. I have tried, but I really amhopeless. I can cook maybe one dish. But even then, if you ate it, you'dprobably end up with food poisoning. Recently, a friend explained how to make aneggplant bake. I brought it out of the oven in this beautiful bowl - and droppedit. It smashed all over the kitchen, and I burst into tears. Which is why I willask Santa for some easy-to-understand cook books."

Someone should tell her she can afford take out.

Otherwise, people should let her be. From what I can tell, she's always been skinny. Some people are just naturally that way. And if she can't cook, that will only aggravate the problem.

In fact, almost every picture I found when doing this post showed her looking too thin.Almost.

See... She looks fine. Give the girl a break. And the number for her nearest Domino's.

This week I managed a three-ferthreewaythreesome TRIFECTA! Check out my other R5S posts! Here's a dose of Pam Anderson, and some Faux-nekkid protesters for ya!

And remember to keep an eye on the NEW The Other McCain site. Looks like it's coming together nicely!----------------Thanks for coming! While you're here, please check out the rest of my blog... see what Makes My Brain Itch!

Scientists in the Netherlands are playing with the notion that food could be engineered to make us feel full faster in an effort to combat obesity. In a recent study, researchers focus "on the possibility of using aroma as a trigger for inducing or increasing satiation". From the study (emphasis mine):

"The extent of retronasal aroma release appears to be a physiological featurethat characterizes any individual. Although the extent of retronasal aromarelease appears to be subject specific, food product properties can betailored in such a way that these can lead to a higher quality and/orquantity of retronasal aroma stimulation. This in turn provokes enhancedfeelings of satiation and ultimately may contribute to a decrease infood intake."

So... they literally want to explore the possibility of changing our food so that we are tricked into feeling full while eating less.

In a world of ever-expanding waistlines and an "obesity epidemic!" (as though it's contagious), I'm sure to some this seems like a dandy idea. Since personal responsibility is an endangered species, and since we clearly can't expect people to make sensible choices on their own, why not just fix the food so nobody eats too much of it?

Seriously. What about people like me? Not only am I not overweight, just maintaining a normal weight is a struggle. What happens to those of us who are required by their metabolism to eat more than the recommended number of calories, just to keep from shrinking?

I realize there's little sympathy for folks like me. While we're to feel bad for people who dig their grave with fork and spoon, the naturally scrawny people of the world have our own problems which are largely ignored, misunderstood, or outright mocked.

Most people would never think to ask the gelatinous blob of flesh in the checkout line behind them (in a cart meant for the handicapped, most likely) whether they've considered a diet. But you might be stunned to know how many people think nothing at all of asking a skinny person "Do you EAT?!" People who would consider it rude to berate the morbidly obese seem to lose all sense of manners when it comes to the underweight. In a culture obsessed with weight, we're considered "lucky" by folks who say "I wish I had your problem!" And the fact that a need for massive amounts of calories is, in fact, a daily inconvenience with real health consequences is lost in the fact that we're thin without effort.

I'll be honest... This study pisses me off. We should tinker with the food supply rather than allow people to suffer the consequences of their gluttony and sloth? We should make everybody eat less because we have a large contingent of fatties with no self-control? We should make life harder for people who are doing what they have to do because other people can't stop doing what they shouldn't be doing in the first place?

I have a better idea. Let the people who overeat suffer the effects of their bad habits... and leave the rest of us alone.

I was just reading a post by a neurotic whiner liberal parent at HuffPo. She's apparently floundering in guilt for lying to her daughter - about Santa Claus.

This is a subject many of us have had to address. For our family, last year was the first sign of disbelief for our daughter. This year came the talk. And even after our heart to heart, deep down I believe it's not a lie to tell your children about Santa Claus.

My own mother always responded to questions about the big guy with "Of course he's real! Santa Claus is part of the magic of Christmas!" And that's what I told my own children. I admit, as a teenager and younger adult my mom's answer seemed hokey to me. Now that I'm older and (hopefully) a more mature parent myself, I see perfect beauty in her answer.

After assuring my kids for years that of course there was a morbidly obese man in politically incorrect fur trying to squeeze down our never-used chimney bearing gifts in store packaging, this year I had to face the music again... And face the big, brown eyes staring into my own as belief in magic and wonder began to fade.

"So. My friends on the bus were right. It IS you guys."

Sigh... Thanks, friends on the bus.

"You lied to me."

The words I never want to hear as a parent. I work very hard to be honest and open with my kids. I had to let her know the magic of Santa was not - and IS not - a lie. I told her:

Santa Claus is magic. That's 100% true. He's made of hope, and love, and family and giving. And the magic of Santa is the wonderful secret that we grownups all share in. We get to be Santa Claus! One night of the whole year, we get to actually be the most wonderful thing kids ever heard of! And now, my dear... YOU are also Santa Claus. With a little brother and sister who believe, YOU get to be a part of the magic. You can answer their questions about Santa, remind them the elves are watching when they're rotten, and help keep the secret to keep the magic alive! How can Santa not be real? You're real!

No, darling. It's more of the magic. The tracker you're talking about is run from a government agency. That means that one night of the year, even the government of the country is Santa. It's important enough to all of us grownups that someone took the time to make a special program so little children could follow Santa around the map, watching and waiting. Only magic could make so many people from so many different families and backgrounds come together in one idea - to make children happy and the world a little nicer - if only for one night.

"So.... everybody's Santa? Even me? That is magic, huh?"

And with that simple acceptance, I saw the trouble drain from her face. Sure, she's moved beyond a precious part of childhood. It makes me a little sad. But at the same time, she has embraced her new role as Santa, and has taken up the cause for her littler siblings. I've heard her this week explaining about those guys in red suits at the mall (Santa's helpers), reminding them that the elves can see them if they're bad, and helping to write letters to the big guy, correcting spelling to make sure they get the right gifts.

You don't ever have to explain that you lied if you choose instead to make your children a part of the magic. If you've read this, you care enough about someone believing that you tried to look it up. That means... well... YOU are Santa, too. Welcome to the club.

I know my own (and my mother's) take isn't as famous or beautifully written as the original "Yes, Virginia, There IS a Santa Claus". But it has worked for us. Instead of a disillusioned child, I now have a new member of the Secret Santa club. Instead of admitting a lie, I could assure her I was telling the truth all along. And instead of feeling guilty, I feel fortunate to have this wonderful child move not from belief to disbelief, but only from one end of the magic to the other.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Yesterday, BigGovernment ran a story about the "new" White House Christmas tree ornaments. These ornaments were actually taken from storage at the White House and sent to be recycled into new decorations... The result isn't half as nice as the one my kindergartener made at school this year.

Artistic talent (or total lack thereof) aside, the ornaments are causing a stir. Not only did the White House allow for and promote the ruin of White House historic decorations, not only did they allow it to be done by (apparently) people who could take cut and paste lessons from a five-year-old... they allowed a Christmas tree in the White House of the United States of America to be decorated with a communist mass-murderer and dictator. Niiiice.

This morning on Hot Air, I see AllahPundit is making excuses for this travesty:

"...isn’t the most likely explanation here that they really didn’t know what was on the ornaments? Why court PR trouble with a deliberate provocation via something this trivial? More interesting to me is the fact that Doonan evidently thought this sort of thing would be welcome in a Democratic White House."

Reindeer excrement. I'm not buying that idea for a second.

Do you think it's a reasonable assumption that the Obamas didn't know what was on these ugly things? Not me - not at all. I'd be willing to bet that the ornaments were carefully screened for religious themes and "art".

"Why court the PR trouble"? Because this administration is tone deaf to the feelings and patriotism of the average American. We're talking about a President who has accomplished very little - beyond apologizing for this country every chance he gets. We're talking about a First Lady who was never proud of her country until it became wise enough to elect her husband to top office. We're talking about an administration that embraces socialists (Van Jones) and makes apologies for communist sympathizers (Anita Dunn).

So, we should be suprised that Doonan thought this would be acceptable "art" for the Obama tree?

I defended President Obama over the "War on Chritmas" flap that started with his "Seasons Greetings" cards. I would have defended the choice to not display the creche. I can't won't defend this. And I disagree 100% with AllahPundit that this was an oversight, or they "really didn't know".

They knew. They just didn't have a problem with it. And I doubt they understand why we do.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

President Obama doesn't seem happy that Danny Glover is speaking out about how little our first black president has done for the black community... but Obama's not concerned because other black people still like him.

"If you want me to line up all the black actors, for example, who support me and put them on one side of the room and a couple who are grumbling on the other, I'm happy to have that," Obama said, adding that polls show African-Americans express "overwhelming support for what we've tried to do."

I guess President Obama missed the article on "Black in the Age of Obama" by Charles Blow. Blow doesn't think blacks are still supporting Obama as much as they're keeping silent so that white folks don't use their displeasure against him. My thoughts on Blow's article are here, and here's his basic point:

"However, the rallying creates a conundrum for blacks: how to air anxiety without further arming Obama’s enemies. This dilemma has rendered blacks virtually voiceless on some pressing issues at a time when their voices would have presumably held greater sway."

Or, more bluntly:

"Meanwhile, black people are also living a tale of two actions: grin and bear it. "

So, blacks don't want to call Obama out on his dismal failure to do anything for them - or the rest of America... And Obama (predictably) takes that silence as a sign that all is well and support remains undiminished. He says he cannot pass laws "that say I'm just helping black folks."

Nobody - I repeat, nobody - is asking you to pass laws that just help black people, Mr. President. Way to twist the point. How about doing something that helps all your people (like fix the mess you're making of our economy) and the blacks, whites... everybody will be better off.

The gist of the article is that plants have not only "actions" but defense mechanisms. The fact that they have natural defenses against being eaten is to be taken as proof plants "want" to survive.

Twisted thing that I am, this article had immediate associations for me. As I read about plants sensing damage to their leaves and beginning the repair process - or producing volatile chemicals to defend from predators - I heard something....
(And no, I'm not channeling Maureen Dowd.)

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"

Here's the video. Content warning.

Save the carrots! No broccoli, No Peas! Can I get a hallelujah? Preach it, Brother Maynard!

According to the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by Robert and Brenda Vales, a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares. My dog happens to be big, so I'm guessing he's an even larger drain on the world's resources.

(The Vales also claim that dogs decrease biodiversity where they are walked. Clearly these two have never seen the chipmunks who scamper all over my dog's area of the yard. Not only are they not intimidated by his presence, some days I'm convinced they're screwing with his head.)

Back to the point... The Vales would rather I replace my dog with a dual-purpose pet. Like a chicken.

You read that right. A chicken. Because they lay eggs, so they're dual-purpose pets. Except you can't cuddle a chicken, take it for a walk with you or play fetch with it. Theoretically, I suppose you could - but who's gonna? So a chicken isn't a pet, it's livestock. Leave it to vegans to not understand the difference.

Or you could get a rabbit. They crunch veggies, like vegans, so they have a lower carbon footprint than my meat-eating dog. According to Robert Vales, "Rabbits are good, provided you eat them."

Ummm... if you eat it, it isn't a pet. We're back to the livestock thing.

Here's what the authors don't get: My dog is better than dual-purpose. He's multi-purpose. My dog is my best pal - he tells no tales, and he never interrupts me. He's a security system, because a big dog has a big bark - nobody will get near my home without my knowledge. He's superior to a mechanical security system because, while an intruder could ignore an alarm or disable it, it's damn difficult to ignore or disable an alarm that has its teeth sunk into your butt. He's a babysitter - nobody messes with "his" kids. He's entertainment, because you can't not laugh at something as dippy as he is. And he's an automatic comforter - he knows when "his people" need companionship, and without being asked or told he's right there with some love and a snuggle.

I don't think you can factor a carbon footprint for my dog that takes into consideration his many duties and all the benefits of having him in the family. But that's where vegans miss the boat (as usual). A dog, with it's many uses and positive points, is a single-purpose pet to them A rabbit - if you eat is - is better because we can call it dual-use... never mind that it's usefulness as a pet ends the minute you kill and eat it.

I've warned the vegans before to watch meddling in my life choices. Now let me expand upon my warning:

I love my dog. I frankly don't care what his carbon footprint might be. And when he leaves us for whatever comes next I'll get another big, loveable furball - the next in a chain that stretches from my childhood to (hopefully) my old age. I will keep dogs in my life as long as I can, even if they're each worse than 15 SUVs... And I'll continue to feed them meat, because that's what they like, and carbon footprint be damned.

And if the vegans don't like it? They should bear in mind my dog sees them the same way I do.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Took him long enough to say something in defense of the woman he chose to run beside him.

Too little, too late, in my opinion. Even for those who hate Palin, you have to admit being thrown under the bus by her running-mate was dastardly. A lot of us will remember how you thought she was good enough for the job but not good enough to have her back. (Except maybe with a dagger...)

I read the other day that a bunch of activists in New York were planning a nekkid bike ride to protest their bike path being removed. No shocker there, as every so-called activist worth their salt knows it isn't a protest if you have your clothes on.

Anway, I just saw on RiehlWorldView that these are sissy protesters. See, it's cold out there. I mean, sure it's December and all... but it's cold out there! And snowy!

Fake boobs pinned to a winter coat! I'm sorry, but that's freakin' hilarious. I hope those losers' butts freeze to their bike seats. Bwahaha! Once again, a stunning example of what I had in mind when I named this blog.

Plastic boobs. Too funny!

(Hey... the Peta babes make this another Rule 5 Sunday post! This week I managed a three-ferthreewaythreesome TRIFECTA! Can I get a WOOT WOOT? Here's Pam Anderson and some Keira Knightley, if it please ya.)

And thanks as always to The Other McCain for the Rule 5 Sunday linky love!Remember to keep an eye on the NEW The Other McCain site. Looks like it's coming together nicely!---------------Thanks for coming! While you're here, please check out the rest of my blog... see what Makes My Brain Itch!

It's Rule 5 Sunday again. It's also almost Christmas, so I was thinking about celebrities who do good things for the little people.... The Daily Beast had a piece up about Hollywood folks who produce the most money for their charities, either by driving or giving donations. The number one female by dollar amount was Madonna - who makes my skin crawl - so I skipped along to number two (three on the list).

Pamela Anderson.

Huh. Who'da thunk? (And, she's long been in a place of high traffic generation honor on McCain's site! I should get bonus linky points for that!)

Saturday, December 19, 2009

I have a post up about the Kevin Jennings "Fistgate" scandal. I'm 100% behind getting rid of this guy. Not only should he not be involved in any way with our schools, I think he's borderline to be prosecuted for promoting pedophilia.

That said, I want to clarify my position on this issue. I've been following this story on several blogs, and keeping an eye on the comments. I'm troubled by the amount of blatant homophobia (or plain old hatred) I see in connection to this story. This sentiment is mainly (but not solely) in comments sections. I'll not name or link them because I don't feel any blog should be held accountable for comments, but I'm troubled all the same.

I posted once about the problems I have with liberals. Well, this judgemental BS is one of my big problems with conservatives. (See... I'm an equal opportunity complainer.) I hate and detest the mindset that someone must pass a religious or other-directed moral test to be a decent person.

I don't care if Kevin Jennings is homosexual. I don't care that he's a homosexual activist. My caring about this man and his life begins and ends at his position regarding schools and schoolchildren.

I am not bothered by homosexuality. I'd be fine with with allowing homosexuals to get married. First, I think it's a lot more fair than same-sex benefits, since partnership benefits are not extended to heterosexual couples who live together without being married. Second, I figure if gays can see the 50% divorce rates in heterosexual marriage and still want to marry... well, why can't they have the right to be as miserable as everybody else? (That's kind of a joke. Not all married folks are miserable... but many are.) Third, I completely reject the notion that allowing gays to marry does harm to my (or anyone's) hetero marriage.

I even support some of Jennings's ideas. Helping to protect gay kids from bullying and exclusion is a positive thing, in my opinion. Teaching tolerance (at age appropriate levels) is a good thing.

BUT... I have a serious problem with the Jennings/GLSEN reading materials and conferences. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. My problem with it has nothing to do with homosexuality. I object to the graphic - nay, pornographic - nature of the material involved. I object to grown adults of any sexual orientation giving instruction on sexual practices to school kids. I do NOT mean sex ed, I mean detailed instructions on how to perform sex acts. And I object to any adults supplying anyone with materials that promote or tolerate sex between kids and adults.

As often with conservatism, I find myself agreeing with the goal and yet completely put off by the motivations of some of those whose goal I share. I want Jennings out of the schools. Period. I want him looked at for possible prosecution for promoting victimization of children. I want GLSEN and all its "teaching aids" far, FAR from my kids and everyone else's...

But I'm disgusted by the attitudes of some who share my position, and I have no desire to be labeled a homophobe or intolerant hater by association. My suggestion to those who want a solution is to put your personal prejudices away for the moment, stop quoting the Bible in your posts and comments, and focus on the adult/child aspect of this scandal. I'll not be a party to an anti-gay witch hunt, and I genuinely believe it hurts the prospects for removing this pervert if he becomes a martyr for gay activism because we make the fight about sexual orientation as opposed to victimization of children.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Some of the reading material recommended by GLSEN (Jennings group) is under fire for its very questionable content in light of it's target... 7-12th graders.

Jim's highlighting a set of pictures showing the Boy Scouts watching homosexual intercourse. Can it get worse than that?

Yes.

Look closely at the picture. I don't see two scouts watching adult men have sex. I see an ADULT scout leader and a CHILD scout watching:

(UPDATE - I've removed the picture. You'll have to refer to the copy at Gateway Pundit. I blog from my living room, and I'm tired of having to scroll as fast as I can to make sure my kids aren't exposed to this filth. While I support other websites showing it, and I think this is an important issue, when it comes to what's on my monitor my kids come first. -END UPDATE)

Forget firing Jennings. I say we prosecute.

--------------------
Thanks to GatewayPundit for the link. And thank you, Jim Hoft -- for covering this story in the first place. It's disgusting to read and see, but it's more disgusting to think our kids may have been exposed to this without our knowledge if Jennings has his way.

ANOTHER UPDATE: After following this story (and comments) in various blogs, I've decided to clarify my position on this issue... If you've read this post, please go on and read this one as well. Thank you.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Stephen King has donated $12,999 to help 150 soldiers from the Maine Army National Guards come home for Christmas.

Turns out, he was approached about donating $13k, but 13's unlucky, so somebody else kicked in the last buck.

Pretty cool. King's one of my favorite writers (Yes, I love escapist horror stuff.), even if his politics are very liberal. Really great to see someone who has extra doing something so nice for others.

Merry Christmas to King, his family, and the soldiers he helped bring home for the holiday. Just hope that bus doesn't come to life and drive you all into another dimension or something instead!

Saturday, December 12, 2009

It's "Rule 5 Sunday" (Saturday night edition). Natalie Portman is in the news again, and this time it has nothing to do with veganism... Or does it?

She'll be starring in (and producing) "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", playing the heroine who's looking for love and kicking zombie butt.

I admit it. I'm intrigued.

So why do I continually obsess about vegan activists think this has something to do with militant vegans? Where does this notion come from, this certainty that it all goes back to activism?

What do zombies eat?

BRRRRAAAAIIIIINNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!!! BRAINS! BRAINS! OM NOM NOM!

That's right. Brains. Completely unacceptable to vegan sensitivities.

Recently, Ms. Portman decided to change her life. And she decided to educate us all about veganism and why we should join the cult consider what we eat. Nice of her to want to play teacher... Anway, I've decided the zombie-killing thing is just an extension of animal activism. If you think it's wrong to snarf a bacon-doublecheeseburger, you gotta have a problem with tearing off someone's head to eat their brains, right?

I expect to see a lot of scenes with Natalie doing breathless battle with things that look like this:

But I'm curious... being a vegan and an animal rights person, would she have the intestinal fortitude to take on a zombie that looked like this?

OK... I'm totally kidding. (Mostly.) I just couldn't let a Natalie Portman story slide past without a couple of vegan jokes.

If you're interested (How can you not be?) the movie's based on the book "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" by Seth Grahame-Smith. It was published in April 2009 by Quirk books, and made it to #3 on the NYT best-seller list. I have to admit, I'm as interested in the book as I am the movie, "described as an expanded version of the Austen classic, the book tells the timeless story of a woman’s quest for love and independence amid the outbreak of a deadly virus that turns the undead into vicious killers."

You knew it was coming... We've seen calls to regulate everything from the energy-efficiency of televisions to what we eat. Now Canadian writer Diane Francis is calling for a planetary one child policy like China's. From her Financial Post piece:

"China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle classgrows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and theone out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating theplanet."

This is insane on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.

Is this a liberal female making a statement about the reproductive rights of other women? Shouldn't someone be taking away her membership card for this transgression? After decades of liberals trumpeting the untouchable rights of women to determine their own reproductive choices? Jonah Goldberg writes in NationalReviewOnline:

Imagine if someone wrote an op-ed saying that we need a planetary ban onabortion. Feminists would get their dresses over their heads in outrage aboutsuch a naked assault on "reproductive freedom."

Indeed. But you have to remember, those staunch abortion rights supporters have never been about "reproductive freedom" -- they're about "abortion freedom". From the beginning of the abortion fight there have been those who claim to support choice for all women while deriding women whose choice is motherhood. Many of the same feminists who say reproduction should be an individual decision have been beside themselves at Sarah Palin's decision to have five children - one of them special needs, no less.

When President Obama appointed John Holdren "science czar", the blogosphere exploded with the news that Holdren was in favor of forced abortions, birth control in the drinking water and mass sterilizations. This was immediately dismissed by the left. "That was in the 70's! And that's not what he said!" (Never mind that thanks to Zombie, we can read exactly what he said... And he did say it.)

Now we see what many of us suspected. Some (I'd guess many) on the left do think this is a peachy idea. It's one more addition to the list of controls they'd like. And of course, a "planetary" one child law would require a "planetary" government to enforce it, another goal many of us have long suspected.

May I make a suggestion to those of you who would support such a disgusting policy? You go first.

That's right. Go get sterilized. Let's exercise our "reproductive choice" here. You go get sterilized, and leave the rest of us to make our choice. (I've made mine. As a parent of six, I'll not apologize for a one of them.)

And while we're talking about choosing, seems Ms. Francis has some choices of her own to make. You see, according to her bio Diane Francis (who claims to be conservative) has TWO children.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Dan Riehl has a piece today about the decision whether to display the creche in the East Room of the White House. According to the New York Times, Desiree Rogers was helping to plan a "non-religious" Christmas celebration -- which has met with resistance.

FOX News reported yesterday that the official White House Christmas card from the Obamas doesn't say "Christmas". On the outside, the card says "Seasons Greetings", and inside it says "May your family have a joyous holiday season and a new year blessed with hope and happiness."

I don't see the problem.

I am not a fan of this administration. I did not vote for Obama, and I'm willing to call him out on any issue where I think he's off the mark. That said, I just don't see anything wrong with his "Holiday Card". And although they've decided to include the creche after all, I would have supported the decision not to.

Instead of telling people to "Have a Merry Christmas!", I tell them to "Have a nice holiday!" Why? I personally celebrate Christmas... but I have no idea what the person I'm addressing might celebrate so I use the generic. I have no problem with the Obamas doing the same. I don't see it as excluding Christmas, I see it as including everyone.

As for the creche... I'm an atheist. I celebrate Christmas as an observation of love and the spirit of giving. There's no nativity scene at my house, and it has never detracted from our enjoyment of the holiday. I don't mind at all when I see them about, because I try to be tolerant of all faiths. I would have been fine with the White House creche being displayed -- or not.

But Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., said abandoning Christmas at Christmas is justplain wrong. On Tuesday, he introduced a resolution calling for the protectionof the sanctity of Christmas. So far, 44 lawmakers, Democrat and Republican,have co-signed the bill.

Congress isn't supposed to be protecting the "sanctity" of anything. It says so right in the Constitution. This is basically asking Congress to recognize the religious implications of a date, and to raise up the beliefs of a particular faith.

Christmas and Christianity already have protection under the Constitution. We have the freedom of religious expression and practice. And that protection covers everyone, all faiths. To make a specific rule promoting government recognition of any one religion at any one holiday goes in the face of those rights.

I notice the Obamas call their trees "Christmas Trees", and their television special with Oprah will be "Christmas at the White House". He's not doing away with anything... he's remembering that there are many different folks of many different faiths. I prefer that to a public official demanding others recognize the "sanctity" of something they may or may not believe.

While I may not agree with President Obama on a lot of things, on this one I'm firmly in his corner. And I'm just as firmly opposed to someone forcing me to hold a day as sacred just because they do.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

As a connoisseur of all things bad for me, I nearly wept with pleasure at this discovery:

Bacon-flavored salt. Brilliant. Now everything can taste like bacon. (Look out, militant vegans. Heh. Bacon-flavored vegans may just convince me there is a god. Beautiful.)

It's pretty good, too. Tastes a lot more like bacon than those imitation bacon crunchy things do. For a test, I shook some on a cheese sandwich. POOF! Instant bacon & cheese sandwich, no grease! Nothing is as good as real bacon -- but this is close if you're bacon deprived.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

I don't know how I missed this. I actually Google these weasels every few days (Yes, I hate them that much.), and didn't catch this fresh...

Apparently, the USDA has classified Peta, along with ALF and ELF, as potential "domestic special interest terrorists". In the new "APHIS Facility Security Profile" given to research facilities who conduct animal testing - a frequent target of ecoterrorists - Peta is included on a questionnaire about terrorist threats and activities.

And they're crying about it.

In an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee, Justin Goodman of Peta whines that:

"This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolentprotests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by oneof the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time..."

Now, I'm a firm believer in free speech - even if I don't happen to agree with your speech. I think the right to peaceful demonstration and speaking out against injustice is our most important freedom. That said, even the Supreme Court agrees that freedom of speech doesn't give you license to say and do whatever the hell you feel like at any given moment. There are reasonable restrictions that protect the safety and well-being of others from what you say and do. The classic example is not being allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

As I've statedmorethan once, I despise Peta and the Petapeople cult. So bearing in mind my prejudice against them, I checked out the definition (don't tell Obama, he has a problem with that) of "terrorism" to see if they have a leg to stand on. Per the online definition from Princeton:

•S: (n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon;usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as acover for terrorist activities)

Peta may not think their activities deserve the definition of terror, but I disagree. These assholes regularly target children with their nasty little demonstrations. And by demonstration, I do not mean standing with a sign and asking folks to sign a petition, or anything I consider peaceful and non-threatening.

I'm talking about things like their Unhappy Meals campaign, which they're smugly proud of. From the weblink for the "Unhappy Meals" comes this description:

"The inside of the Unhappy Meal box is stained with "blood" and contains a"blood"-filled packet urging McDonald's to "Ketchup With the Times," a papercutout of a menacing Ronald McDonald with PETA's parody "I'm Hatin' It" logo, a"bloody" plastic chicken, and a "Chicken McCruelty" T-shirt wrapped up like asandwich."

Sounds nice, huh? Have a look.

Most kids freak the hell out when they see a normal clown... Peta thinks this nightmare-inducing parody is not only acceptable but wonderful.The blood splatters are a nice touch. Nothing like traumatizing innocent children in the name of a few chickens, huh?How about the "Unhappy Meal" toys with slit throats?More blood and gore... Because as we all understand, it's better to give some kid screaming night terrors than a burger.And this, mind you, is right outside. No protecting your children from it, even if you only happen to be driving by! You don't even have to buy McDonald's for Peta to torment and terrorize your children - you just have to live near one. I swear to you, if I were going past and my kids were subjected to this sick, demented display I would ram that rubber knife right down that pseudo-chicken's throat. I consider myself a reasonable, peaceful person... but if you ever want to find out what kind of violence I am capable of, try this around my children.

So, in closing.... You Petapeople and your cult can whine and cry all you like about your new label. I think it's more than appropriate. Your twisted priorities allow you to weep for the poor, defenseless animals while showing no remorse for TERRORIZING poor, defenseless human children. I realize actions like this are not why they got the label, but it's a perfect example of why they deserve it.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

I just read "Black in the Age of Obama" by Charles Blow, NYTimes. He quotes Dickens ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. ...") in his description of a black America:

"...supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, letalone commiserate in it."

Blow points out, correctly, that things have deteriorated under President Obama, with blacks faring worse than most. The recession has affected everyone, but the unemployment rate for blacks is more than twice the rate for whites. The Department of Agriculture study (which I've posted about before) on food security finds black children the most likely to suffer "food insecurity".

Of course, this comes as no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. Obama has broken promises to most of his supporters, and I can't think of anyone who's situation has improved... with the exception of those in his inner circle.

What makes no sense to me are the results of a new Gallup poll, which Blow also quotes. While Obama's approval rating with whites has fallen to 39 percent, with blacks it has stayed above 90 percent.

To me, this says something disturbing. This says it doesn't matter how badly he screws up, the blacks will continue to show him support. Obama has been losing popularity with independents, moderate democrats, far-left progressives, and the conservatives who voted against McCain.

But the blacks hang on... Why?

They're blinded by race.

It can't be anything else. How else could they bring themselves to stand behind someone who has failed them utterly?

I have a plea to blacks. STOP being "Black in the Age of Obama". I beg you. It's not helping any of us. You have to put the color of his skin behind you, and judge him on his merits instead... and find him lacking, as he deserves. Be "American in the Age of Obama" instead.

I thought when we Inaugurated a black President, we had crossed a bridge. I did not vote for Barack Obama - because I disagree with his political views - but I was proud of my country that a black man had broken the barrier. Without white votes he couldn't have won, yet millions voted (without regard to skin color) for the candidate they believed in. A new era!

Except, it's not. Dissent brings cries of racism. Blow laments that:

"Any protester with a racist poster can hijack a news cycle."

That's not the case. What it means is, in a crowd of thousands the media will find the handful of idiots who have their own agenda. That's a reflection on the media, not white America as a whole. But still, it's clear the racial tensions have not smoothed away like I thought they might.

The white racists are out there, yes. And so are the black racists. Blow says:

"To a large degree, Obama was elected by white people, some of whom were moreable to accept him because he consciously portrayed himself as raciallyambiguous."

What the hell does that mean? Obama didn't portray himself as racially ambiguous. He portrayed himself as bi-racial... which he is. And I can guarantee you every American was aware of it on election day. There was nothing ambiguous. But Blow's own racism leads him to believe that some white people could only vote for Obama if his blackness was diluted or in question.

Here's what I see: The majority of America voted for Barack Obama. Most did it because they felt he was best for the job, some because they were afraid McCain was too much like Bush - or they hated Sarah Palin. Whichever it was, the tone of his skin was not the primary reason for most people.

Since then, he had dropped the ball repeatedly on all major issues, broken nearly every promise he made, let down those progressives who thought he'd back their agenda, and plunged us deeper into debt and uncertainty. Understandably, his support is diminishing. Except with blacks.

Blow closes with:

"Meanwhile, black people are also living a tale of two actions: grin and bearit. "

What a self-defeating and wrong-headed attitude. Grin and bear it? How utterly foolish. I have better advice:

STOP SUPPORTING HIM. It should not matter that he happens to be black. His actions have done the black community no good at all. If you continue to blindly back this man because of his skin you are doing yourselves, and the country, a grave disservice.

I'm angry. If I were black, I'd be MORE angry, not less so. I'd be furious that I put my hope and faith in a man who used me to get into office and then disregarded my concerns. I'd be absolutely beside myself that someone who understood my struggles had advanced to the highest position in the country only to forget about the rest of us.

Obama has changed you from "Black in the Age of Obama" to "Black and Blue (from being stepped on) in the Age of Obama".

Stand up! Call him out! Get past Blow's idea that:

"However, the rallying creates a conundrum for blacks: how to air anxietywithout further arming Obama’s enemies. This dilemma has rendered blacksvirtually voiceless on some pressing issues at a time when their voices wouldhave presumably held greater sway."

This is YOUR country, too. And you're only voiceless if you choose to be! Demand better! And if (when) you don't get it, VOTE HIM OUT. Show him that yes, America is ready for a black President... but one who will do good for our country, white and black.

What message do you send by backing him when he won't back you? The wrong one.

-----------------RELATED: Dennis Prager at Real Clear Politics also feels Blow's attitude does no good. He's got a different angle, but I agree with him as well.